The whole "don't worry I'm getting all my protein, just from plant sources" is messed up. People need to apply digestibility and usability ratios to get an idea of their net amount. Even then, it ain't the same as eggs and meat.

Exactly. I just can't see many folk having good long term health with a diet based off 811.

A real fruitarian diet is a sub-set of vegan. They only eat fruit. They believe that fruit is the only part of the plant it willingly gives to us to eat, which makes it therefore the most ethical diet of all. Fruit is any fruiting plant thing so it can be some things we consider vegetables. Sounds like if the banana guy is eating non-fruit things then it's just a vegan diet heavy on the fruit, not a true fruitarian diet.

When I first joined this site three years ago, there was a tendency to avoid talking about Durianrider by name. He was treated as if he was a Voldemort or Beetlejuice type of character. I guess invoking the name caused him to show up on MDA?

I always thought the "fear" of this guy was funny. I see he has not appeared yet; so far so good.

Candyman Candyman Candyman

I don't think it was "fear" as much as it was not wanting to cause an influx of bullshit threads by him or his followers, which was happening fairly often a few years ago.

Last edited by Misabi; 12-06-2013 at 07:39 PM.

If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

The numbers are just the numbers, man. It's nothing to get up in arms about. It "can" be done. I didn't say it would be right for anyone, or that it's super-awesome, or whatever. I just said that it can be done.

And, you know, a lot of folks do eat over 3,000 cals/day on paleo. . . and the 811 crowd recommends 3000 cals as a minimum (or at least, the loudest ones do). 300 calories of protein is 75 grams. And I do know paleo folk on 4-5k calories per day, too. They tend to be the more strict ones -- no fruit, no starches, added fats (no oils), etc.

I don't understand why you think I'm up in arms about anything. I was just pointing out how, while it's possible to get a reasonable quantity of inferior protein on these types of diets, it's anathema to the dietary paradigms that a lot of people around here subscribe to. 75 grams of lettuce and fruit-sourced protein is inadequate protein, period.

Well, the reason I think you are "up in arms" about it is because of the language that you used in both that post and this. While tone isn't always easily read, tone can sometimes be discerned. Not the difference between:

The second part is really about whether or not one is portraying something accurately. Go Kaleo had a great post about Animal vs Plant Protein, and it happens to be based on a scientific study that is interesting. Here are the two relevant elements: one quoting the study, one quoting GoKaleo's assertion.

This study sought to answer the question ‘If the subject is getting an adequate dose of leucine, does the source of protein matter?’ The answer, according to this study, is no. As long as the subject is getting adequate leucine (2-3 grams), the source of the protein doesn’t matter for body composition and strength improvements. A 48 gram dose of rice protein post workout provides adequate leucine. It is only at smaller doses that source matters.(GoKaleo)

Now, there are questions about the study such as -- duration, number of people involved in the study, and of course, what diet they may have been on outside of the study (ie, were the rice protein crew vegetarians, or were they omnivores). But, for what the study is, it asserts the opposite of "vegetable/fruit protein is inadequate protein, period."

So, while a lot of people here do assert that this is the Best Diet Ever, and I'm inclined to agree with them based on my own dietary practices (which is a mix of hippocrates and paleo at the moment with a bit of warrior diet tossed in).

But, I also feel like we really don't need to be all crazy on diets that other people may choose or try. And, if it works for them, all the better. And the right information *could* help it work for them.

I have a friend who got excited by some of Freelee's materials. Now, to my knowledge, she didn't read a book/etc, she just jumped in on the message board and got rolling. And, she did great for about. . . oh 7 months? She really enjoyed it, and her husband did it too, and they both lost a lot of weight and were doing great. But then they started to struggle, and found it difficult to solve their problem.

I sat down and did some number crunching -- were they getting enough protein? were they getting enough fat? etc? It turns out that they weren't, and they hadn't even read the 811 book -- which does explain a few things. So, I happened to grab the book from the library, go through it, and figure it out.

I figured them at the 1g/lean body mass and sorted their nutrition around that and their fat -- making sure that it was 10 and 10. And then that the remainder was then carbs.

The real issue that they faced was the sheer volume of food that they had to eat -- as she was at 400 calories from fat, 400 from protein, and 3200 from carbohydrates. And he was at 560P/560F/4480C. They started keeping their online calorie counters, and basically in a few weeks got up to that amount, and were out and about doing their activities, too.

Now, we are 2 years away from that time, and they are still raw vegan. They use b12 patches and take some supplements, too (like vit D -- they do live in the dakotas where it gets cold -- but do outdoor sports then, too).

They look about like normal folks, honestly. Not as lean as harley and freelee, but overall fit and active and they seem to be doing just fine.

And, I have other raw friends. One of them has been raw for 20 years, and even runs her own successful raw food cafes. She doesn't follow any one 'program' -- she's just a raw foodist. And sometimes she is more hippocrates and sometimes she is more 811, and sometimes she's just whatever 'raw' is. But whatever it is, she's a lot of fun and a very cool person and I love her.

Why would I hold such aggression around their food choices? Around someone else going "yes, this is the way I want to eat?" It's not my business, really.

Well, the reason I think you are "up in arms" about it is because of the language that you used in both that post and this. While tone isn't always easily read, tone can sometimes be discerned. Not the difference between:

The second part is really about whether or not one is portraying something accurately. Go Kaleo had a great post about Animal vs Plant Protein, and it happens to be based on a scientific study that is interesting. Here are the two relevant elements: one quoting the study, one quoting GoKaleo's assertion.

Now, there are questions about the study such as -- duration, number of people involved in the study, and of course, what diet they may have been on outside of the study (ie, were the rice protein crew vegetarians, or were they omnivores). But, for what the study is, it asserts the opposite of "vegetable/fruit protein is inadequate protein, period."

So, while a lot of people here do assert that this is the Best Diet Ever, and I'm inclined to agree with them based on my own dietary practices (which is a mix of hippocrates and paleo at the moment with a bit of warrior diet tossed in).

But, I also feel like we really don't need to be all crazy on diets that other people may choose or try. And, if it works for them, all the better. And the right information *could* help it work for them.

I have a friend who got excited by some of Freelee's materials. Now, to my knowledge, she didn't read a book/etc, she just jumped in on the message board and got rolling. And, she did great for about. . . oh 7 months? She really enjoyed it, and her husband did it too, and they both lost a lot of weight and were doing great. But then they started to struggle, and found it difficult to solve their problem.

I sat down and did some number crunching -- were they getting enough protein? were they getting enough fat? etc? It turns out that they weren't, and they hadn't even read the 811 book -- which does explain a few things. So, I happened to grab the book from the library, go through it, and figure it out.

I figured them at the 1g/lean body mass and sorted their nutrition around that and their fat -- making sure that it was 10 and 10. And then that the remainder was then carbs.

The real issue that they faced was the sheer volume of food that they had to eat -- as she was at 400 calories from fat, 400 from protein, and 3200 from carbohydrates. And he was at 560P/560F/4480C. They started keeping their online calorie counters, and basically in a few weeks got up to that amount, and were out and about doing their activities, too.

Now, we are 2 years away from that time, and they are still raw vegan. They use b12 patches and take some supplements, too (like vit D -- they do live in the dakotas where it gets cold -- but do outdoor sports then, too).

They look about like normal folks, honestly. Not as lean as harley and freelee, but overall fit and active and they seem to be doing just fine.

And, I have other raw friends. One of them has been raw for 20 years, and even runs her own successful raw food cafes. She doesn't follow any one 'program' -- she's just a raw foodist. And sometimes she is more hippocrates and sometimes she is more 811, and sometimes she's just whatever 'raw' is. But whatever it is, she's a lot of fun and a very cool person and I love her.

Why would I hold such aggression around their food choices? Around someone else going "yes, this is the way I want to eat?" It's not my business, really.

So, that was my point, really.

I take umbrage to veganism for very good reasons. Because it's predicated on the assumption that we can be "better" (morally or nutritionally) than the way we're designed by the incredibly complex processes of the Universe.

In short, veganism as a philosophy is disingenuous about the death that's necessary to sustain life; and as a set of dietary recommendations, it's pure villainy.

I'm 100% with you on this RM. By it's very nature veganism assumes a moral superiority over animals precisely because it imagines that humans are not subject to the laws of nature. They wrongly assume that we can choose to eat differently than we were designed to. It ain't so and they are deluded. This belief of human exceptionalism is what is ruining the earth. It can be argued that vegans do less harm than say strip mining or agribusiness but both are inherently disconnected from nature. The only way forward is to acknowledge that we are no better than any other species and learn to live within our limits.

Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

While I wouldn't sat that criticism is unwarranted, what is unwarranted is letting it color your assertion of reality. As demonstrated, protein is protein, and so I'm much more of a live and let live (or die, I guess) mentality.

Likewise, as a former vegan, I must admit that a lot of my time was spent talking to other vegans about not being sanctimonious gits. I mostly wanted them to find middle ground with other dietary practices -- and usually, as with paleo and WAPF folks, there's *a lot* of common ground. But some of them just can't get out of their own heads.

For me, veganism was about simplicity. While I have no particular moral qualms with eating or using animals per se (i do believe in good welfare), I still felt that if i could avoid, then I would give it a try to avoid it.

Being vegan was very educational for me, as I learned how to cook, and then later prepare (for raw foods) a variety of lovely recipes. I learned about a lot of different fruits and vegetables that I never would have tried before or had access to. And I learned a ton about food sourcing, production, and politics. I also learned a great deal about nutrition, and all of this crazy calculating stuff.

I left veganism for health reasons, ultimately finding paleo, but I still brought all of that information forward with me. My diet prior to paleo was not the junk-food ridden diet of many people. My diet before vegetarianism was healthy, if rather simple/repetitive (in terms of not getting diverse fruit or veg). To me, it's always a journey of fine-tuning.

And really, I do know people who have been vegan and vegetarian for a long time. While in that movement, people would give other people crap about how their diet wasn't this or that ("right" usually). And I'm like "you know what, everyone is an adult. So, we might as well trust that this person is thoughtful and intelligent, and will make adjustments accordingly as they go." and everything else is Noneya Biznez.

To me, if the OP thinks that this diet will give him/her the best results, then s/he can give it a go and see what happens. And the rest of us are free to go -- yup, go ahead, but I'm not gonna.

I'm 100% with you on this RM. By it's very nature veganism assumes a moral superiority over animals precisely because it imagines that humans are not subject to the laws of nature. They wrongly assume that we can choose to eat differently than we were designed to. It ain't so and they are deluded. This belief of human exceptionalism is what is ruining the earth. It can be argued that vegans do less harm than say strip mining or agribusiness but both are inherently disconnected from nature. The only way forward is to acknowledge that we are no better than any other species and learn to live within our limits.

You reminded me of this quote:

"Everything is right for me that is right for you, O Universe. Nothing for me is too early or too late that comes in due time for you. Everything is fruit to me that your seasons bring, O Nature. From you are all things, in you are all things, to you all things return." -Marcus Aurelius